It is ten years since the Burmese military stole the government of the
country from the duly elected government. That situation still persists today.
Does it follow that the International system is ineffective and has no role to
play?

It would be easy to become pessimistic and to assume that the situation is
hopeless and that change is unachievable. But I prefer to recall two other
struggles that some of us have supported: South Africa and apartheid, and
Indonesia and East Timor. In both cases, what appeared to be totally intractable
situations finally yielded largely as a result of International pressures.

What, then, are the levers for engaging such International pressures? And
what is the record over the recent year or so?

The record reveals that various elements in the International system are
engaged with the situation.

Secretary-General On 7 April 1999 the Secretary General presented to the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a report on "Situation of human rights in
Myanmar" (E/CN.4/1999/29). He submitted the report pursuant to a 1998
General Assembly resolution (53/162) which requested him to continue his
discussions with the Government of Myanmar on the situation of human rights and
the restoration of democracy.

Kofi Anan's report was brief. It told of the appointment of the UN's
Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mr. Alvaro de Soto, and of
his meeting with Myanmar's Foreign Minister at the UN which paved the way for de
Soto to visist Yangon from 27 to 30 October 1998. There he held discussions with
key members of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), and also with
Central Executive Committee members of the National League for Democracy (NLD),
including its General-Secretary Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. He reported that it had
not been possible to arrange a further visit. but that efforts were continuing.
He described the mandate entrusted to him by the General Assembly as one of
"good offices", pursuing high level dialogue. He noted that the
responsibility for fact-finding and reporting on the human rights situation
remained with the Special Rapporteur appointed by the CHR.

Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur pon the situation of human rights in Myanmar is
Rajsoomer Lallah. He presented a detailed report to the Commission on Human
Rights on 22 January 1999 (E/CN.4/1999/35). The CHR adopted a lengthy resolution
on 23 April 1999 (E/CN.4/RES/1999/17).

The Special Rapporteur's Interim Report, prepared under 1999 resolutions of
CHR and ECOSOC, was presented by the Secretary-General to the UN General
Assembly on 4 October 1999 (A/54/440).

He noted that, since his appointment in June 1996, he had yet to be allowed
to see the situation on the ground despite repeated requests by the General
Assembly and the CHR. Accordingly, his Interim Report was, necessarily, based on
reports from other bodies. The report considered "Measures adversely
affecting democratic governance", notably "that political parties in
opposition continue to be subject to intense and constant monitoring by the
regime, aimed at restricting their activities and prohibiting members of
political from leaving their localities". Among his sources of information
were "thematic" procedures of the CHR - the Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention.

In reporting on "Prison conditions", the Special Rapporteur on
Myanmar was able to note with satisfaction that the International Committee of
the Red Cross had reached a verbal agreement with the SDPDC under which, for the
first time, ICRC teams in 1999 had been able to visit more than 18,000 detainees
and to register over 600 security detainees at nine places of detention and
three places of administrative internment. Regular visits had been agreed for
the future, together with an extension to all detention facilities in Myanmar.

There was nothing positive in his report under the heading of "Forced
Labour". for this topic, the relevant International agency was the
International Labour Organization (ILO) which had appointed a Commission of
Inquiry to examine complaints of violation by Myanmar of the Forced Labour
Convention, 1930 (ILO No. 29). The International Labour Conference in June 1999
adopted a strong resolution on the matter culminating as follows: (a) That the
attitude and behaviour of the Government of Myanmar are grossly incompatible
with the conditions and principles governing membership of the Organization; (b)
That the Government of Myanmar should cease to benefit from any technical
cooperation or assistance from the ILO, except for the purpose of direct
assistance to implement immediately the recommendations of the Committee of
Inquiry, until such time as it has implemented the said recommendations; (c)
That the Government of Myanmar should henceforth not receive any invitation to
attend meetings, symposia and seminars organized by ILO, except such meetings
that have the sole purpose of securing immediate and full compliance with the
said recommendations, until such time as it has implemented the recommendations
of the Committee of Inquiry.

The Special Rapporteur fully endorsed the substantiated conclusions and
recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry and the recommendations contained in
the resolution adopted by the Conference.

On the topic, "Situation in the ethnic minority States". the
Special Rapporteur was "deeply concerned at the ongoing generalized human
rights violations committed against the ethnic groups and other minorities in
the eastern part of Myanmar, particularly Shan and Karen States. The violations
have been thoroughly documented by human rights organizations and newly arrived
refugees in Thailand describing the same stories of widespread human rights
violations committed by the military, including summary executions, rape,
torture, ill treatment during forced labour, portering, forcible relocation of
villages and dispossession of land and other property".

He was bale to report more positively under the heading "United Nations
programs in Myanmar" about the work of the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees in assisting Muslims returnees from Bangladesh,
in co-operation with the World Food Program and other agencies. He also reported
on the operations of the UN International Drug Control Program.

In his "Conclusions and recommendations" the Special Rapporteur
began by welcoming the resumption of its valuable work by the ICRC and the
cooperation of the Government, and the potential for the operation activities of
UN agencies in the provision of humanitarian assistance. He went on to report
that, otherwise,

53... There has been no progress in the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
If anything, the situation is worsening. Repression of civil and political
rights continues and intensifies whenever there is any form of public protest or
any form of public political activity. Repressive laws are still used to
prohibit and punish any exercise of the basic rights of freedom of thought,
expression, assembly and association, in particular in connection with the
exercise of legitimate political rights. This regime of repression puts the
right to life, liberty and physical integrity - when it is not simply violated -
permanently at risk. The rule of law cannot be said to exist and function, as
the judicial system is subject to a military regime and serves only as
handmaiden to a policy of repression.

54. No effective measures have been taken to restrain forced labour amounting
to no less than a contemporary form of slavery, in spite of freely assumed
international obligations; and the practice still continues in the name of
tradition, or else of economic development.

55. In the ethnic areas, the policy of establishing absolute political and
administrative control beings out the worst in the military, and results in
killings, brutality, rape and other human rights violations which do not spare
the old, women, children or the weak.

Secretary-General

The Secretary-General submitted a further report to the General Assembly on
27 October 1999 (A/54/499) in which he fleshed out further details of the
dialoguye between himself and his Special Envoy and the Government of Myanmar,
Interestingly, the report also referred to the involvement in such discussions
of the World Bank.

General Assembly

On 17 December 1999 the General Assembly adopted resolution 54/186 on the
Situation of human rights in Myanmar (A/RES/54/186). The preambular paragraphs
recalled the Special Rapporteur's observation "that the absence of the
rights pertaining to democratic governance is at the root of all major
violations of human rights in Myanmar"; expressed grave concern at the
"continuing and intensified repression of civil and political rights";
and deeply regretted the Government's failure "to cooperate fullywith the
relevant United Nations mechanisms, in particular the Special Rapporteur, while
noting the increased contacts between the Government of Myanmar and the
international community". The resolution, among other things, urged full
cooperation with the Special Rapporteur, welcomed the cooperation with the ICRC,
deplored the continuing violations of human rights, expressed grave concern at
the increased political repression, and so on.

The General Assembly strongly urged the Government of Myanmar, in accordance
with assurances given on various occasions, "to take all necessary steps
towards the restoration of democracy in accordance with the will of the people
as expressed in the democratic elections held in 1990 and, to this end and
without delay, to engage in a substantive political dialogue with political
leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and representatives of ethnic groups
...". It requested the Secretary-General to continue his discussions on the
situation of human rights and the restoration of democracy, and to submit
further reports to the General Assembly and the CHR.

Commission on Human Rights.

The Secretary General's report to the CHR on 24 March 2000 (E/CN.4/2000/29)
was brief. He referred to Alvaro de Soto's second visit to Myanmar from 14 to 18
October 1999 for further consultations with SPDC leaders, NLD leaders and
representatives of the New Mon State party and the Kachin Independence
Organization. He stated that Mr. de Soto had assumed new responsibilities, and
that the Secretary-General was in the process of appointing a new Special Envoy
for Myanmar.

The CHR had the report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Lallah (E/CN.4/2000/38)
and, on 18 April 2000 adopted a resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in
Myanmar (E/CN.4/RES/2000/23). It too welcomed the resumption of cooperation with
the ICRC.

It noted the constructive dialogue between the Committee on the Elimination
against Women and the Government. It also noted the visit by the Special Envoy
of the Secretary-General and noted that two senior members of the ethnic
minority groups had been arrested shortly after having met the Special Envoy!

The resolution then went on to express the CHR's grave concern at increased
political repression, at the continued closure of most institutions of higher
learning, at the failings of the National Convention and the fact that it had
not been convened since 1996, and at the issue of forced labor. The CHR deplored
the "continuing pattern of gross and systematic violations of human
rights" in a range of areas; th elack of independence of the judiciary from
the executive and the wide disrespect for the rule of law; the continued
violations of human rights and widespread ddiscriminatory practices against
persons belonging to minorities; the continuing violations of human rights of
women; the continuing violations of children; the escalation in the persecution
of democratic group activists; and sever restrictions on the freedoms of
opinion, expression, assembly and association, etc.

The CHR called on the Government of Myanmar to establish a constructive
dialogue with the United Nations system, including the human rights mechanisms;
to continue to cooperate with the Secretary-General or his representative and to
broaden this dialogue; and to consider ratifying core human rights treatise and
the Refugee Convention. It urged the Government to cooperate fully and without
further delay, with all UN representatives, in particular the Special Rapporteur.
"to allow him urgently, without preconditions, to conduct a field mission
and to establish direct contacts with the Government and all other relevant
sectors of society, and, thus to enable him to discharge his mandate, and, in
this context, regrets that, notwithstanding the recent indications that serious
consideration would be given to a visit by the Special Rapporteur, he has not so
far been given permission to visit the country".

The resolution went on to urge the Government of Myanmar to do all the right
things. It ended by deciding to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for
a further year and to report to the General Assembly and the CHR; to request the
Secretary-General to continue to give assistance to the Special Rapporteur; to
request the Secretary-General also to continue his own discussions with the
Government; and to request the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to
cooperate with the Director of the ILO with a view to identify ways in which
their offices might usefully collaborate for the improvement of the human rights
situation in Myanmar.

UNHCR

The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, specifically issued a
statement on 1 September last about the stand-off between the Government and Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi and others, and urged "the two sides to engage, as soon as
possible, in a substantive political dialogue, as called for by a series of
resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Commission of Human
Rights". (HR/00/59).

Secretary-General

On 20 October 2000 the Secretary-General submitted a report to the current
session of the General Assembly (A/55/509). He reported that in April he had
appointed the former Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the UN, Mr. Razali
Ismail as his new Special Envoy. He had visited Myanmar from 29 June to 3 July
on a "confidence building", and had paid a second visit from 9 to 12
October. He had meetings with SPDC leaders. He had also had two rounds of
discussions with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. It had been difficult time for arranging
such access because of the roadside standoff, and subsequent restrictions on her
movements and the movements of other NPD leaders. As the Sydney Morning Herald's
correspondent reported (12/10/00) "the continuing crack-down on dissidents
has further dampened prospects of progress towards internal political dialogue
on the restoration of democracy".

(The same correspondent, Craig Skehan, has also reported criticism by Burmese
of Australia for continuing to conduct human rights seminars in Burma while Aung
San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest.)

The Secretary-General summarized the discussions that had been taking place
in which he and his Special Envoy had stressed the need for dialogue and
reconciliation, and in which SPDC leaders reiterated their claim to be merely a
transitional government. He also welcomed the announcement that universities and
colleges had been reopened.

We await with interest for any resolution that the General Assembly may adopt
in its current session.

Conclusion

The content of these various reports and resolutions make depressing reading.
And they tell us little that those of us concerned about Burma do not already
know.

But the point is that these matters are being examined and discussed and
deplored throughout the International system. In the United Nations itself, they
engage the attention of the General Assembly, the Secretary- General, the
Commission on Human Rights and its subsidiary bodies, notably the Special
Rapporteur on Myanmar as well as the several "thematic" Special
Rapporteurs and Working Groups. They engage the active attention, also, of
specialized agencies such as the International Labor Organization, the
International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Food Program and so forth.

The issues are all solidly on the agenda of the International system, placed
there by Burmese and their supporters, among Governments and Non-Governments
Organizations alike.

They have not yet led to liberation But the point of the International system
is to subject the SPDC to pressure from as many directions as possible, and to
maintain that pressure.

That pressure also needs to be supported by similar efforts directed at
lobbying individual governments, corporations, and other points at which
leverage may be possible. The recent involvement of the World Bank is
particularly significant.

Short of a resolution of the Security Council authorizing the use of armed
force, nothing more direct is likely. Economic and trade sanctions are, of
course, possible. So also it may be possible to mount a challenge to the
credentials of representatives of the SPDC to represent Burma at the UN or in
other fora.

The position in Burma continues to be appalling, under a determined and
repressive military regime. There is little immediate prospect of overturning
the regime from within. The alternative is to make the regime a pariah among the
world community of States.

Eventually the regime may yield. After all, who would have dreamed that
Apartheid would yield? Or Indonesia's iron grip over East Timor? Or Milosevic's
domination over what remains of Yugoslavia?